Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 7/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-6 are examined on the merits below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (US 2020/0028152 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2023/0178718 A1).
As to claim 1. Hirose et al. discloses a negative electrode slurry for a lithium-ion secondary battery (abstract), comprising: a negative electrode active material comprising a lithium-doped silicon oxide [(0158]); a solvent comprising water [0160]; a binder ([0160] SBR); and carbon nanotubes (CNT), and wherein the negative electrode slurry has a pH of 10 or more [0160].
While Hirose et al. discloses the carbon nanotubes, it is not stated that these are of the single wall type.
Park et al. discloses an anode for a secondary battery and teaches the use of single-walled carbon nanotubes [0158] in the anode active material slurry [0158]. Or that the carbon nanotubes are for a gas adsorbent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to replace the carbon nanotubes with the single walled carbon nanotube because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In this case, a carbon nanotube is replaced for a single carbon nanotube in an anode slurry.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02. In this case the carbon nanotubes can also have the property of the gas absorbent.
As to claim 2. Modified Hirose et al. discloses the slurry according to claim 1, wherein an amount of the single-walled carbon nanotubes ranges from 0.1 wt. % to 2.0 wt. % based on a total weight of a solid content in the slurry. (Hirose discloses the CNT with 1 wt. % and Park discloses 0.5 wt. % - [0158])
As to claim 3. Modified Hirose et al. discloses slurry according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises a graphite-containing material ([0159]- artificial or natural graphite).
As to claim 4. Hirose et al. discloses the slurry according to claim 3, wherein a weight ratio of the graphite-containing material to the lithium-doped silicon oxide ranges from 98:2 to 50:50. (20 percent silicon based active material -silicon oxide to 80 percent of the carbon-based material-graphite - [0159])
As to claim 5. Modified Hirose discloses the slurry according to claim 3, wherein an amount of the single-walled carbon nanotubes ranges from 0.01 wt. % to 0.5 wt. % based on a total weight of a solid content in the slurry (Park et al. discloses the addition of the single walled carbon nanotube of 0.5 wt. % [0158]).
As to claim 6. Hirose et al. discloses the slurry according to claim 1, which further comprises thickener, CMC [0160].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights